Here are some more comments for the patch v32-0001, file:
src/backend/commands/ddl_deparse.c
This is a WIP, it being such a large file...
==
1. General - comments
For better consistency, I suggest using uppercase for all the
single-line comments in the function bodies.
There are multiple
I noticed that some (not all) callers didn't check the return value of
pclose() or ClosePipeStream() correctly. Either they didn't check it at
all or they treated it like the return of fclose(). Here is a patch
with fixes.
(A failure to run the command issued by popen() is usually reported
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> At Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:59:14 -0700, Andres Freund wrote
> in
> > But I think we can solve that fairly reasonably nonetheless. We can change
> > PGPROC->lwWaiting to not just be a boolean, but have three states:
> > 0: not waiting
> >
On 11.10.22 18:04, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 14.09.22 06:53, Tom Lane wrote:
Actually ... an even-more-terrifyingly-plausible misuse is that the
supplied oldsize is different from the actual previous allocation.
We should try to check that. In MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING builds
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 7:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Dilip Kumar writes:
> > Yes, this looks like a bug and your fix seems correct to me. It would
> > be nice to add a test case for this scenario.
>
> A test case doesn't seem that exciting to me. If we were trying to
> make it actually work,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 7:53 PM Andrey Lepikhov
wrote:
> On 28/10/2022 16:12, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > I think there is another patch that improves performance of COPY FROM
> > for foreign tables using COPY FROM STDIN, but if Andrey (or anyone
> > else) want to work on it again, I think it would
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 5:01 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 03:44:32PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So I'm kinda proposing that we only do the forward struct initialization
> > dance when it really saves on things -- in particular, when it helps
> > avoid or reduce
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:26 AM David Rowley wrote:
>
> I looked at dlist_check() and I didn't quite manage to figure out why
> the cast is needed. As far as I can see, there are no calls where we
> only pass dlist_head solely for the dlist_check(). For
> dlist_member_check(), dlist_delete_from()
HI,
On Oct 31, 2022, 10:48 +0800, Japin Li , wrote:
>
> Hi, hackers
>
> The VariableCacheData says nextOid and oidCount are protected by
> OidGenLock. However, we update them without holding the lock on
> OidGenLock in BootStrapXLOG(). Same as nextXid, for other fields
> that are protected by
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:02 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:01:33PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > SUGGESTION
> > /* Only applicable when prefetching is available */
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. Done this way, then.
>
> > +/* Disabled on Windows as the performance
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 19:05, Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> So, when an overflow occurs, the head->count wraps around after
> PG_UINT32_MAX, meaning, becomes 0 and we will catch it in an assert
> build. This looks reasonable to me. However, the responsibility lies
> with the developers to deal with
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 14:15, Zhang Mingli wrote:
> HI,
>
> On Oct 31, 2022, 10:48 +0800, Japin Li , wrote:
>>
>> I also find a similar code in StartupXLOG(). Why we don't hold the lock
>> on OidGenLock when updating ShmemVariableCache->nextOid and
>> ShmemVariableCache->oidCount?
>>
>> If the
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:27 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 2022-10-27 Th 19:38, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2022-09-19 22:29:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Maybe a compromise could be found whereby we provide a conversion function
> >> that converts whatever the catalog storage format
Hi,
On 10/20/22 9:17 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
On 10/19/22 8:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
2) Split index and table statistics into different types of stats
We track both types of statistics in the same format and rename column in
views etc to make them somewhat sensible. A number of the
On 09.07.22 17:52, David G. Johnston wrote:
No. It is always the user parameter. It just so happens that parameter
also has a default. And so while there is a transitive aspect the
resolution of the user parameter happens first, using the OS user if
needed, then the dbname parameter is
Hi David,
> I'll add this to the November CF.
Thanks for the patch.
I wonder if we can be sure and/or check that there is no performance
degradation under different loads and different platforms...
Also I see 0001 and 0003 but no 0002. Just wanted to double check that
there is no patch
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 10:29 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> But I think we can solve that fairly reasonably nonetheless. We can change
> PGPROC->lwWaiting to not just be a boolean, but have three states:
> 0: not waiting
> 1: waiting in waitlist
> 2: waiting to be woken up
>
> which we then can use
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:44 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 19:05, Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> > So, when an overflow occurs, the head->count wraps around after
> > PG_UINT32_MAX, meaning, becomes 0 and we will catch it in an assert
> > build. This looks reasonable to me.
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 04:12:33PM -0700, Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 10:40 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 05:24:58PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > It caused no issue when I changed:
> > >
> > > /* Check that it's
Hi,
In the commitfest application, I was wondering today what was the exact meaning
and difference between open/closed status (is it only for the current
commitfest?) and between «waiting for author» and «Returned with feedback».
I couldn't find a clear definition searching the wiki, the mailing
FYI, this is not intentional, and I do plan to look into it, however I've
been somewhat busy with pgconfeu, and am travelling for the rest of this
week as well.
On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 at 21:09, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 2:55 PM Dave Page wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at
2022年10月27日(木) 16:12 Alvaro Herrera :
>
> On 2022-Oct-24, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 09:44:18PM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
>
> > > + else if (child_relkind ==
> > > RELKIND_FOREIGN_TABLE && is_partitioned)
> > > +
Hi Shubham,
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:04 AM Shubham Shingne
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to determine optimal standby for automatic failover based on
> pg_last_wal_recieve_lsn() value of all slaves.
>
> But what if max_wal_size is reached, is LSN value reset to zero.
Per
Hi Jehan-Guillaume,
> In the commitfest application, I was wondering today what was the exact
> meaning
> and difference between open/closed status (is it only for the current
> commitfest?)
Closed means that the CF was in the past. It is archived now. Open
means that new patches are accepted
On 12.07.22 21:32, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
Please find attached a rebased version. I have split the patch into two
parts trying to make it easier to review, one with the code changes and
the other with the test.
Other than that, there are minimal changes from the previous version
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 3:04 PM shiy.f...@fujitsu.com
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 2:56 PM Wang, Wei/王 威 wrote:
>
> I tried to write a draft patch to force streaming every change instead of
> waiting until logical_decoding_work_mem is exceeded, which could help to test
> streaming parallel.
Hi Heikki,
> Rebased version attached. Given that Aleksander marked this as Ready for
> Committer earlier, I'll add this to the next commitfest in that state,
> and will commit in the next few days, barring any new objections.
Thanks for resurrecting this patch.
While taking a fresh look at the
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:23 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 11:32 PM Simon Riggs
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 10:33, Simon Riggs
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the feedback, I will make all of those corrections in the
> > > next version.
> >
> > New version
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 11:32 PM Simon Riggs
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 10:33, Simon Riggs
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the feedback, I will make all of those corrections in the
> > next version.
>
> New version attached. I've rolled 002-004 into one patch, but can
> split again as needed.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 11:33, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> What is the behavior if "nested_transactions" value is changed within
> a transaction execution, suppose the value was on and we have created
> a few levels of nested subtransactions and within the same transaction
> I switched it to off or to
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 13:46, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:27 PM Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> On 2022-10-27 Th 19:38, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 2022-09-19 22:29:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> Maybe a compromise could be found whereby we provide a conversion
On 12/01/2022 07:57, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 8:41 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
The patchset is in a good shape. I'm changing the status to "Ready for
Committer".
The 2nd patch doesn't apply anymore due to a conflict on
resowner_private.h:
On 31/10/2022 04:28, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
At Sat, 29 Oct 2022 13:00:25 -0700, Andres Freund wrote in
One way to reduce the size increase would be to use the space for initialarr
to store variables we don't need while initialarr is used. E.g. itemsarr,
maxitems, lastarr are candidates. But
I was working on optimizing the LWLock queue in a little different way
and I also did a benchmarking of Andres' original patch from this
thread. [1]
The results are quite impressive, indeed. Please feel free to see the
results and join the discussion in [1] if you want.
Best regards,
Pavel
[1]
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I don't think we need separate definitions for frontend and backend,
> since the contained Assert() will take care of the difference. So the
> attached would be simpler.
WFM.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 12:22, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 5:03 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:23 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 11:32 PM Simon Riggs
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 10:33, Simon Riggs
>
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 04:12:33PM -0700, Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
>> Also, for what it's worth, I think requiring the libraries to be in
>> place before running ALTER SYSTEM does not really seem that onerous. I
>> can't really think of use cases it precludes.
> Right now,
On 10/24/22 17:26, Frédéric Yhuel wrote:
Hello,
When studying the weird planner issue reported here [1], I came up with
the attached patch. It reduces the probability of calling
get_actual_variable_range().
The patch applies to the master branch.
How to test :
CREATE TABLE foo (a
On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 16:02, vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 02:09, Zheng Li wrote:
> >
> > > Adding support for deparsing of CREATE/ALTER/DROP LANGUAGE for ddl
> > > replication.
> >
> > Adding support for deparsing of:
> > COMMENT
> > ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES
> > CREATE/DROP
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 5:03 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:23 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 11:32 PM Simon Riggs
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 at 10:33, Simon Riggs
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the feedback, I will make all
Hi hackers,
> I will take another look at v3 tomorrow and probably mark it RfC.
I very much like the patch. While on it:
```
+static inline bool
+dclist_is_empty(dclist_head *head)
+{
+Assert(dlist_is_empty(>dlist) == (head->count == 0));
+return (head->count == 0);
+}
```
Should we
Hi,
Attached is a patchset to refactor heapgettup(), heapgettup_pagemode(),
and heapgetpage(). heapgettup() and heapgettup_pagemode() have a lot of
duplicated code, confusingly nested if statements, and unnecessary local
variables. While working on a feature for the AIO/DIO patchset, I
noticed
Hi Aleksander,
Thank you for your help!
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 16:51:23 +0300
Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
[...]
> > In the commitfest application, I was wondering today what was the exact
> > meaning and difference between open/closed status (is it only for the
> > current commitfest?)
>
>
On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 13:34, Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2022 at 09:35, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 at 16:18, Matthias van de Meent
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 at 21:12, Matthias van de Meent
> > > wrote:
> > > > While working on
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 6:15 AM Matthias van de Meent <
boekewurm+postg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 13:46, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:27 PM Andrew Dunstan
> wrote:
> >> On 2022-10-27 Th 19:38, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 12:59 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> After pulling my
> hair out for quite a while to try to understand that behaviour, I figured out
> that it's just a side-effect of *removing* some other contention.
I've seen this kind of pattern on multiple occasions. I don't know if
they
On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 2:26 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> Stickier buffers for index pages seems to be related. I haven't see it
> even get started, though. But this might be able be an additional
> reason for starting it.
Maybe, but FWIW I think that that will mostly just need to distinguish
Hi hackers,
> > Rebased version attached. Given that Aleksander marked this as Ready for
> > Committer earlier, I'll add this to the next commitfest in that state,
> > and will commit in the next few days, barring any new objections.
>
> Thanks for resurrecting this patch.
Additionally I decided
Hi, hackers!
When we take LWlock, we already use atomic CAS operation to atomically
modify the lock state even in the presence of concurrent lock-takers. But
if we can not take the lock immediately, we need to put the waiters on a
waiting list, and currently, this operation is done not atomically
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 8:25 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 4:30 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-10-17 13:34:02 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> Maybe just nuking the IsBufferCleanupOK call is best, I don't know. I
> honestly doubt that it matters very much what we pick here.
Hi Andres,
Thank you for your patch. The results are impressive.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:10 PM Pavel Borisov wrote:
>
> I was working on optimizing the LWLock queue in a little different way
> and I also did a benchmarking of Andres' original patch from this
> thread. [1]
> The results are
On Sun, 2022-10-30 at 09:39 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dilip Kumar writes:
> > Yes, this looks like a bug and your fix seems correct to me. It
> > would
> > be nice to add a test case for this scenario.
>
> A test case doesn't seem that exciting to me. If we were trying to
> make it actually
Hi hackers,
Please find attached a patch proposal to split index and table
statistics into different types of stats.
This idea has been proposed by Andres in a couple of threads, see [1]
and [2].
To sum up:
We currently track index and table types of statistics in the same
format (so
Hi,
On 10/31/22 2:31 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
I didn't looks closely, but there's a couple places where you wrote
";;", which looks unintentional.
- PG_RETURN_TIMESTAMPTZ(tabentry->lastscan);
+ PG_RETURN_TIMESTAMPTZ(tabentry->lastscan);;
Thanks for looking at it!
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:27 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> Agreed, I think the important point to decide is what to do for
> back-branches. We have the next minor release in a few days' time and
> this is the last release for v10. I see the following options based on
> the discussion here.
>
> a. Use
Hi,
Thanks for working on this - I think it's something we need to improve.
On 2022-10-31 14:38:23 +0400, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> If the lock state contains references to the queue head and tail, we can
> implement a lockless queue of waiters for the LWLock. Adding new items to
> the queue head
On Sun, 2022-10-30 at 19:10 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> FWIW we did this (plus a lot more) in the per-index version tracking
> feature reverted from 14.
Thank you. I will catch up on that patch/thread.
> > 0002: Enable pg_collation_actual_version() to work on the default
>
> Makes sense.
>
Hi,
On 2022-10-31 17:17:03 -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:51 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2022-10-31 16:21:06 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > BTW, I've seen a sporadic crash (SEGV) with the patch in bg writer
> > > with the same set up [1], I'm not
Hi,
We currently do not provide any SQL functions for generating SCRAM
secrets, whereas we have this support for other passwords types
(plaintext and md5 via `md5(password || username)`). If a user wants to
build a SCRAM secret via SQL, they have to implement our SCRAM hashing
funcs on their
On 10/31/22 13:37, Joshua Drake wrote:
Team,
While on the road in Iowa visiting covered bridges I met up with an
amazing individual named Brent. Brent, is with a small organization
named: Darpa.
They are using PostgreSQL + RLS + XPATH but unfortunately the
performance has been less than
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 1:20 PM Jacob Champion wrote:
> I wanted to get feedback on the approach before wordsmithing too
> much.
I've added this to tomorrow's CF [1]. Thomas, if you get (or already
have) a PG community username, I can add you as an author.
Thanks,
--Jacob
[1]
Hi,
On 2022-10-31 16:21:06 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> BTW, I've seen a sporadic crash (SEGV) with the patch in bg writer
> with the same set up [1], I'm not sure if it's really because of the
> patch. I'm unable to reproduce it now and unfortunately I didn't
> capture further details when
Hi,
On 2022-10-31 14:14:15 +0100, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Please find attached a patch proposal to split index and table statistics
> into different types of stats.
>
> This idea has been proposed by Andres in a couple of threads, see [1] and
> [2].
Thanks for working on this!
> diff
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 09:14:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> I don't think we need separate definitions for frontend and backend,
>> since the contained Assert() will take care of the difference. So the
>> attached would be simpler.
>
> WFM.
Thanks, fine by me.
--
"Jonathan S. Katz" writes:
> Attached is a (draft) patch that adds a function called
> "scram_build_secret_sha256" that can take 3 arguments:
This seems like a reasonable piece of functionality, I just have one
comment on the implementation.
> * password (text) - a plaintext password
> * salt
On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 at 03:12, Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
> I wonder if we can be sure and/or check that there is no performance
> degradation under different loads and different platforms...
Different platforms would be good. Certainly, 1 platform isn't a good
enough indication that this is going
Hi,
I was reading examine_variable in src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c
It seems we already have the rte coming out of the loop which starts on
line 5181.
Here is a patch which reuses the return value from `planner_rt_fetch`.
Please take a look.
Thanks
parent-rel-rte.patch
Description: Binary
On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 00:25, David Christensen
wrote:
>
> Hi Matthias,
>
> > Did you read the related thread with related discussion from last June,
> > "Re: better page-level checksums" [0]? In that I argued that space at the
> > end of a page is already allocated for the AM, and that
On Mon, 2022-10-31 at 03:20 +, shiy.f...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 9:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > What I'm wondering about is whether we can refactor this code
> > to avoid so many usually-useless catalog lookups. Pulling the
> > namespace name, in particular, is expensive
Hi,
On 2022-10-31 11:05:32 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> What do you think of my ResourceOwner refactoring patches [1]? Reminded by
> this, I rebased and added it to the upcoming commitfest again.
> With that patch, all resources are stored in the same array and hash. The
> array is part of
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:51 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-10-31 16:21:06 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > BTW, I've seen a sporadic crash (SEGV) with the patch in bg writer
> > with the same set up [1], I'm not sure if it's really because of the
> > patch. I'm unable to reproduce
On Sun, 2022-10-30 at 16:52 +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Oct-28, ilya.v.gladys...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > This will cause a segfault or raise an assert, because inserting
> > into
> > foreign tables via logical replication is not possible. The
> > solution I
> > propose is to add
FYI:
[18:51:54.707] ../src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c(720): warning C4098:
'heapgettup': 'void' function returning a value
[18:51:54.707] ../src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c(850): warning C4098:
'heapgettup_pagemode': 'void' function returning a value
For some reason, MSVC is the only one to
On 10/31/22 6:05 PM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
* password (text) - a plaintext password
* salt (text) - a base64 encoded salt
[…]
+ /*
+* determine if this a valid base64 encoded string
+* TODO: look into refactoring the SCRAM decode code in
libpq/auth-scram.c
+
Hi,
On 2022-10-31 10:51:36 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> These are functions where quite a lot of things happen between the
> ResourceOwnerEnlarge and ResourceOwnerRemember calls. It's important that
> there are no unrelated ResourceOwnerRemember() calls in the code in
> between, otherwise
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:50 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 5:01 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 03:44:32PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > So I'm kinda proposing that we only do the forward struct initialization
> > > dance when it really
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 10:01:05AM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> This is on my bucket list of things to do some day, so I guess now is as bad a
> time as any :). Caveat is that this will have to be a personal
> free-time project,
> so would be good if someone else is around as well.
Don't
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 09:12:53AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I noticed that some (not all) callers didn't check the return value of
> pclose() or ClosePipeStream() correctly. Either they didn't check it at all
> or they treated it like the return of fclose(). Here is a patch with fixes.
>
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 09:44:18PM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
> Recently I have been working a lot with partitioned tables which contain a mix
> of local and foreign partitions, and find it would be very useful to be able
> to
> easily obtain an overview of which partitions are foreign
2022年10月31日(月) 14:42 Michael Paquier :
>
> Hi all,
>
> As per the world clock, the next commit fest will begin in 30 hours
> (11/1 0:00 AoE time). I may have missed something, but it looks like
> we have no CFM for this one yet.
** tumbleweed **
> Opinions, thoughts or volunteers?
This is on
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 10:40 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:27 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Agreed, I think the important point to decide is what to do for
> > back-branches. We have the next minor release in a few days' time and
> > this is the last release for v10. I see the
On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 09:56:47AM +0530, jian he wrote:
> I am free. I can help.
Commit fest managers are usually people who have a few years of
experience behind the community process. There are plenty of patches
to review, so feel free to pick up a few things and help moving these,
of course!
Hi,
On 2022-10-31 14:37:39 -0400, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> and heapgetpage(). heapgettup() and heapgettup_pagemode() have a lot of
> duplicated code, confusingly nested if statements, and unnecessary local
> variables. While working on a feature for the AIO/DIO patchset, I
> noticed that it was
Zhihong Yu writes:
> I was reading examine_variable in src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c
> It seems we already have the rte coming out of the loop which starts on
> line 5181.
> Here is a patch which reuses the return value from `planner_rt_fetch`.
planner_rt_fetch is not so expensive that we
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 6:31 AM Ian Lawrence Barwick
wrote:
> 2022年10月31日(月) 14:42 Michael Paquier :
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As per the world clock, the next commit fest will begin in 30 hours
> > (11/1 0:00 AoE time). I may have missed something, but it looks like
> > we have no CFM for this
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 09:12:53AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> (A failure to run the command issued by popen() is usually reported via the
>> pclose() status, so while you can often get away with not checking fclose()
>> or close(), checking pclose() is more often
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 5:19 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-10-31 17:17:03 -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:51 PM Andres Freund
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 2022-10-31 16:21:06 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > > BTW, I've seen a sporadic crash
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 04:27:08PM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> 1. password only -- this defers to the PG defaults for SCRAM
> 2. password + salt -- this is useful for the password history / dictionary
> case to allow for a predictable way to check a password.
Well, one could pass a salt
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 03:14:54PM +0800, Japin Li wrote:
> For example, since SetCommitTsLimit() is only used in BootStrapXLog() and
> StartupXLOG(), we can safely remove the code of acquiring/releasing lock?
Logically yes, I guess that you could go without the LWLock acquired
in this routine at
On 31.10.22 01:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 09:36:23AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Would there be a use for that? It's currently only used in the atomics
code.
Yep, but they would not trigger when using atomics in the frontend
code. We don't have any use for that in
While working on something else, I noticed $SUBJECT: we do not
currently allow row-level triggers on partitioned tables to have
transition tables like this:
create table parted_trig (a int) partition by list (a);
CREATE TABLE
create function trigger_nothing() returns trigger language plpgsql as
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 6:58 PM Aleksander Alekseev
wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> > I will take another look at v3 tomorrow and probably mark it RfC.
>
> I very much like the patch. While on it:
>
> ```
> +static inline bool
> +dclist_is_empty(dclist_head *head)
> +{
> +
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:18 AM Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
wrote:
> However, I'm not strictly sure who is responsible to set these statuses. The
> reviewer? The author? The commiter? The CF manager? I bet on the reviewer, but
> it seems weird a random reviewer can reject a patch on its own
93 matches
Mail list logo
